Who Warmed the Archives? LLMs Overestimate Historical Warmth
Authors: Claudiu Creanga, Liviu P. Dinu
Organizations: Interdisciplinary School of Doctoral Studies, University of Bucharest, Romania · HLT Research Center, University of Bucharest, Romania · Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bucharest, Romania
Historical archives are an under-used source for extending the instrumental climate record backward in time, and LLMs offer a way to extract the indices climatologists derive by hand. Beyond measuring how well systems extract this signal, we check whether their errors are safe to use for cross-century comparison, since a good correlation score does not rule out systematic, era-linked bias. Comparing lexical baselines, fine-tuned historical transformers, and LLM prompting on the Pfister temperature index across five centuries of German text, lexical methods beat every fine-tuned transformer we test, including one pretrained from scratch on historical German (r=-0.016). All six LLMs we test (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek v4 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Qwen3.7-Plus, Kimi-K2.6-Fast) show a warm bias that grows with calendar year, with the same sign in every model (slopes +0.13 to +0.34/century, p<0.01). The effect is modest in size (r-squared approx equal to 0.01 to 0.05) but consistent across six independently developed models. The best-correlated of the six, Gemini 2.5 Flash, matches the best lexical correlation (r=0.32) at double the error. An ablation stripping explicit dates and calendar-era markers from the quotes leaves this trend essentially unchanged, favoring an anachronistic present-day prior over the model correctly inferring the quote's era. Correlation alone is thus insufficient for vetting an LLM as a historical-climate-index oracle.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Mean zero-shot prediction bias by century, all six audited models, identical 702-row sample: a cold bias before 1800 flips to a warm bias after, in every model.
Split
Records
Years
Train
4,022
1500–1849
Validation
558
1850–1899
Test (TI)
502
1900–2022
Test (HHI)
666
1900–2026
Table 1: Main corpus splits, temperature index (TI) and humidity index (HHI). Train/validation are shared. Only the test period and size differ.
Portion
n
Years
Pre-1900 (stratified, fresh)
300
1500–1899
1900–2000 (reused test set)
402
1900–2000
Total
702
1500–2000
Table 2: Century-stratified bias-audit sample, used identically across all six audited LLMs.
Model
Val MAE ↓
Val RMSE ↓
Val r ↑
Test MAE ↓
Test RMSE ↓
Test r ↑
TF-IDF (word) + Ridge
0.8329
1.0264
0.3368
0.9012
1.1423
0.3225
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost
0.8225
1.0179
0.3443
0.8687
1.1245
0.2844
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost + year
0.8305
1.0260
0.3246
0.8762
1.1239
0.2905
TF-IDF (word) + Ridge [+800]
0.8282
1.0219
0.3384
0.8905
1.1342
0.3091
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost [+800]
0.8325
1.0354
0.3096
0.8625
1.1145
0.2707
TF-IDF (char) + XGBoost + year [+800]
0.8337
1.0348
0.3134
0.8596
1.1117
0.2771
Table 3: Temperature-index regression: lexical baselines (original dataset and the [+800]-expanded training variant, char n-gram = 3–5) vs. fine-tuned historical transformers (original dataset only).
Figure 2: Test-set Pearson r across all main-corpus models.
Condition
n
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
r ↑
Zero-shot
402
1.7192
2.0535
0.3197
3-shot random
502
1.4975
1.8407
0.3537
5-shot random
502
1.4574
1.7897
0.3745
3-shot similarity
502
1.4404
1.7619
0.4140
Table 4: Gemini 2.5 Flash, zero-shot vs. few-shot, on the temperature-index test set.
Century
n
Gemini
GPT-5
DeepSeek
Claude
Qwen
Kimi
1500–1599
60
− 0.328
− 0.525
− 0.483
− 0.683
− 0.300
− 0.550
1600–1699
60
− 0.278
− 0.783
− 0.767
− 0.700
− 0.308
− 0.475
1700–1799
60
− 0.273
− 0.333
− 0.383
− 0.483
− 0.017
− 0.108
1800–1849
60
+0.462
+0.300
+0.350
− 0.017
+0.375
+0.383
1850–1899
60
+0.600
+0.500
+0.258
− 0.008
+0.333
+0.200
1900–1949
253
+1.011
+0.591
+0.591
+0.202
+0.638
+0.664
Table 5: Mean zero-shot bias (predicted − true index) by century, all six audited models, identical 702-row sample. “GPT-5” = GPT-5-mini; “Qwen” = Qwen3.7-Plus; “Kimi” = Kimi-K2.6-Fast.
Model
Slope/century
r
p
Gemini 2.5 Flash
+0.344
0.212
< 0.0001
GPT-5-mini
+0.272
0.199
< 0.0001
DeepSeek v4 Flash
+0.250
0.177
< 0.0001
Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.129
0.105
0.0054
Qwen3.7-Plus
+0.201
0.158
< 0.0001
Kimi-K2.6-Fast
+0.257
0.199
< 0.0001
Table 6: Linear regression of zero-shot bias against calendar year, n=702 for all six models.
Figure 3: Bias-vs-year trend, all six audited models, n=702 each (see Figure 1 for the corresponding per-century breakdown).
Model
Slope (orig.)
Slope (redacted)
p (red.)
Gemini 2.5 Flash
+0.344
+0.354
< 0.0001
GPT-5-mini
+0.272
+0.269
< 0.0001
DeepSeek v4 Flash
+0.250
+0.303
< 0.0001
Claude Sonnet 4.6
+0.129
+0.124
0.0078
Table 7: Bias-vs-year regression slope (points/century), original vs. era-redacted text, n=702 in both conditions.